Obama's Israel statement is arrogant, naive, and dangerous
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
More than two weeks after Hamas launched a genocidal assault on Israel, resulting in the death of at least 1,400 innocent civilians and the abduction of at least 200 more, former President Barack Obama weighed in with a statement.
And it's a statement that not only demonstrates the sheer arrogance we endured throughout his administration, but the feckless cluelessness that has now infected the Biden administration's foreign policy.
To his credit, Obama managed to begin with one paragraph that was rooted in reality, speaking of Hamas's "horrific attack," which demonstrated "unspeakable brutality," and America's "rightly declared solidarity" with the Israeli people.
The rest, however, is Obama's signature combination of pompous, naive, and stupid.
First, Obama repeated the now-ubiquitous phrase "Israel has a right to defend [itself]," used by everyone immediately before they criticize Israel for doing so. But it's also important to notice the sheer conceit required to acknowledge a right that would be assumed were it regarding any other country on Earth. When Russia invaded Ukraine, for example, were politicians falling over themselves to announce that Ukraine has a right to defend itself?
Why does Obama say that Israel has a right to defend itself? Because he is giving credence to the premise that Israel shouldn't defend itself.
Then, Obama gave veiled support for President Joe Biden's supposed objectives: "going after Hamas, dismantling its military capabilities, and facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages to their families," dripping with the same politically correct nonsense we're seeing from media outlets refusing to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group.
Notice Obama's trademark squishy language. "Going after Hamas." Are we playing hide-and-seek? "Dismantling its military capabilities." Are we just going to take Hamas's favorite toys away? "Facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages to their families." Are we going to do what Obama and Biden love best: pay ransoms ?
And finally, there was Obama's immediate rush to both-sides the conflict by placing all responsibility on Israel alone, even threatening Israel with the collapse of made-up alliances and a decrease in mythical international opinion if it fails to avoid the unavoidable.
"But even as we support Israel, we should also be clear that how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters," Obama wrote.
Sure, in theory. But in practice, what does that mean? Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have any ideas. Because who needs ideas when you can pontificate from your mansion thousands of miles away?
In fact, this is the problem with most criticism of Israel's military policy in the aftermath of Hamas's attack. Even considering the fact that Hamas intentionally uses its own people as human shields, as Obama admits, tactics that prevent civilian casualties are nowhere to be found.
It's easy to argue, as Obama does on multiple occasions, that civilian casualties should be avoided wherever possible, setting aside the dark irony that during his presidency, Obama launched hundreds of drone strikes and killed thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians.
It is also easy to agree that all civilian life has value, whether Israeli or Palestinian, Jewish or Muslim or Christian.
But in the world of actual conflict, people like Obama never bother to go from the "what" to the "how," because the "how" is difficult, if not unfeasible.
Israel must defend itself — don't forget, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel — but how?
Israel must either use airstrikes or a ground invasion to, as Obama meekly put it, "dismantle" Hamas. But doing so without civilian casualties when Hamas is actively working to place them in harm's way? Impossible.
Obama knows this, but instead does what is easy: falls back on blaming Israel for every civilian casualty in Gaza and employing the Left's favorite form of bigotry, the bigotry of low expectations. He suggests the Palestinian side is incapable of separating military from civilian, and so Israel is responsible while fighting in an immoral arena of war defined by Hamas.
But Obama endorsing a win-win for Hamas is hardly a surprise when we remember that a win for Hamas is a win for Iran. The same Iran Obama (and now Biden) worked overtime to enable. And one empty blog post on the conflict can never undo the fact that Obama opened the door. Iran and Hamas went through it.
Tags
Who is online
443 visitors
He couldn't run, bone spurs......
This from the same Obama who, when in office, ordered unrestricted drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that on more than one occasion hit the wrong targets resulting in collateral damage and deaths of many innocent civilians.
Don't forget his famous double tap drone strikes, he wasn't happy just killing his first targets, he would wait until the first reponders arrived to give aid and then he would hit them with a second drone strike.
Plus Obama didn't have any problem killing his own citizens without due process.
I remember that..................many of our friends here on the left shrugged and said "so what"
White House guidance in the Obama administration was to count drone kills as enemy dead if the body was male and over 16 unless there was compelling evidence that it was a civilian.
First of all, if bombing the shit out of Gaza was an effective strategy, Israel would not be bombing the shit out of Gaza because they’ve done that several times already. Secondly, Netanyahu has been propping up Hamas over the secular Palestinian Authority for a long time. -
Turned out not to be a great strategy. Neither is Israel’s support for their religious fanatics who are busy stealing occupied land in the West bank.
Let’s Fisk this seed --
Obama wrote a simple, direct, declarative statement:
This next item pops up a lot. From the seed -
Everyone with half a brain knows that Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, … are terrorists. Why does this have to be repeated endlessly, do conservatives forget this all the time? Obama does use the ‘terrorist’ word in this speech when he points out that all Palestinians are not terrorists –
From the seed –
Do conservatives have some cognitive deficiency where “Going after Hamas” could mean playing hide & seek? Where “Dismantling its military capabilities" means taking away toys. Weasel wording. When GWB said “going after al Qaeda” many times in his speeches conservatives never fussed, maybe because they never listened to his speeches?
From the seed -
The FBI could take out all the drug traffickers in LA by bombing LA into rubble; this is not a good idea. What Obama doesn’t want to see is the stupidity we saw after 9/11. What should have been a 3-month police action in Afghanistan ended up taking 7,500 American lives, wounding tens of thousands, adding $4,250B to our debt, making Iran into a regional power, and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, thus creating a shitload of terrorists. We are Israel’s friend and major benefactor, Obama is pointing out that the strategies used by Israel in the past have not worked. Maybe take this opportunity to devise a plan with a better potential outcome?
From the seed –
It must use both airstrikes and ground invasion. The ‘meekly’ is weasel wording noise. No one expects there to be no civilian casualties, but it’s certainly possible to minimize them. It would be wise for Israel to do that, otherwise they’ll just create a lot more future terrorists. We learned all about that from GWB’s needless fiasco in Iraq.
From the seed –
Total bullshit. Where does Obama endorse Hamas? This war is actually a win for Russia, it takes Ukraine out of the news. As for enabling Iran, full credit for that belongs to GWB. His & his administration’s stupidity converted Iraq/Iran from mortal enemies into besties and biggest trading partners.
Israel has had 15+ years to do something about Hamas. What Israel did was tolerate it because it suited their purposes. The Palestinians and the Israelis need to have radical religious-fanatic-ectomies. Then there might be a chance for a two-state solution and peace.
Until Palestinians free themselves from Hamas, then they are basically supporting Hamas.
They could make Israel's task easier by identifying Hamas members, locations where missiles are fired from, and places where Hamas stores supplies.
The Palestinians in Gaza made the same mistake as the Iranians; they put religious fanatics in charge. Fanatics think they're doing what God wants. Compromise is impossible. The people in Gaza, like the Iranian public, suffer endlessly. Hamas and the Iranian Mullahs are terrorists who kill their fellow citizens without compunction. Neither population seems to have the ability to do anything about their mistake. Israel has the power to eradicate Hamas, or at least bring it to the point where the people in Gaza can subdue it. If the people in Gaza don't take advantage of this or Israel does not actually commit to a two-state solution by controlling its fanatics, they are both doomed.
A two state solution was offered previously and turned down.
Palestinians need to take some responsibility for their situation.
When you allow yourself to be used and abused and represented by terrorists, you can't really be surprised when you are collateral damage.
So was a collusion government. What exactly are the American people supporting if neither side wants peace?
Palestinians stated goal is "from the river to the sea" reclamation of ancient lands.
The majority of Palestinians and Israelis reject any two-state solution.
I don't think it is about what American people want.
I don't give a shit what their stated goals are. I don't really give a shit about anyone in the ME at this point either. All of their people are suffering and dying while their leaders continue millennia old grudges.
What would you have Israel do then?
Kind of hard to negotiate with those who want you wiped off the face of the earth.
At this point, as I said, I don't care. They will do as they please.
Both sides had opportunities for lasting solutions and here we are again. Humas are terrorists no doubt, but Israel isn't exactly clean here either.
Just curious--if you don't care, what are you doing here?
I do support Israel but at the moment I believe that they are really hurting their credibility. They are pushing the Bedouins out of their homes and land. To put this in perspective the Bedouins are Israel citizens and serve in the IDF, in fact, there is a whole battalion of Bedouins serving in the IDF and they draw some of the most dangerous assignments in guarding the border and there is another group that acts as trackers, after all they have been on this land for thousands of years.
If seems to me that those pushing for the ''settlements'' are actually violating their own charter.
Would you label Israeli actions as terrorist? Before the Hamas attacks, had Israel ever expressed that Hamas should be eradicated?
Stop building straw men.
I support the citizens caught in the middle.
Seems like SOP for Bibi and the hardliners.
Yes. I don't think that's even a debatable point.
Stop avoiding questions..